Federal Affairs

The latest Civitas Poll notes that almost a quarter (23 percent) of North Carolinians want the country to become “more socialist.” That seems like a high number. It reminds me of a headline a few years ago in a Texas newspaper that read “Only 38 percent of Texans support secession.” Of course, the word “only” is kind of dwarfed by that 38 percent number, which seems like a lot when talking about a topic like secession.

At any rate, could you imagine the 23 percent enthusiasm number for socialism ever being polled in North Carolina during the Cold War era? No way! “Wolverines,” to quote the defiant cry of the American teenage freedom fighters from “Red Dawn.”

A look at the crosstabs for the poll clearly shows that socialism has the highest favorability amongst the 18-34 age group. Thirty-four percent in that age range have at least a favorable or somewhat favorable view of socialism.

It’s certainly a reminder, in part, that ‘the long march through the institutions’ has indeed had a profound impact on the younger generations. The Left knew that capturing the colleges would eventually pay dividends. Politics and public-policy are downstream of culture and still, conservatism is largely unequipped to compete in the cultural arena.

Socialism, of course, as Alexis de Tocqueville noted so well, is just another form of slavery. It is completely inimical to America’s Founding and largely a 20th Century nightmare some of our world has still not recovered from.

During the ongoing NC State Board of Elections hearings into the 9th Congressional District race, several mistakes and misconceptions have come up. Here are just a few examples.

Oops, wrong form

With all the information, references to law and technical terms being used throughout the hearings, it is easy to get confused. A case in point is an editorial published yesterday in the Charlotte Observer that claims that the hearing was all but over on the first day (link in the original):

It was over when state officials put up a slide early Monday declaring that more than 1,000 absentee ballot forms were submitted in Bladen County and Robeson County by political operative McCrae Dowless and his workers. That’s more than the 905-vote margin of victory in the 2018 race.

The slide to which they linked did not state that McCrae Dowless and his workers submitted absentee ballot forms. It would have been foolish for Dowless to do so since turning in even one is a felony unless you are the voter or the voter’s near relative. Dowless and his workers submitted over 1,000 absentee ballot request forms. Submitting hundreds of absentee ballot requests in not illegal (although I think it should be) and submitting an absentee ballot request on behalf of someone does not necessarily imply an intention to harvest that voter’s ballot.

Because the voter’s intent is key, any alleged ballot harvesting, standing alone, does not weigh in favor of a new election. To be sure, absentee-by-mail ballot harvesting is illegal, and it should be referred to prosecutors for appropriate action. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 163-226.3(a)(6). But illegality in transmission is not necessarily indicative of invalidity of substance. Without evidence to show that the contents of ballots sufficient in number to change the outcome of the election were tampered with, any illegality in how they were delivered should be immaterial to the Board’s decision making.

There is some logic to that reasoning; you do not want to punish voters, by having their votes invalidated, for the illegal activities of campaign operatives. However, there are several reasons why ballot harvesting should cast suspicion on the substance of the ballots, including concerns that ballot harvesters can exert improper influence on voters while the voters are completing their ballots. Dowless’ alleged ballot harvesting is problematic regardless of what happened to them after they were harvested.

Remember, this is not a sporting event

Way too many times on Twitter, I have seen variations of this (tweet randomly selected from host of similar tweets):

What many folks fail to realize is that this is not a personal death match between Dan McCready and Mark Harris; there were another 282,717 people involved and their votes should not be invalidated unless there is compelling evidence that the election itself is not valid due to fraud. Relatedly, the board of elections is not determining the winner of the election like judges in a boxing match. They are determining if they can certify the results of the election (in which case Harris wins) or not (in which case there is a new election).

Senate Republicans yesterday introduced a bill that could offer affordable health insurance options for more than 100,000 small business employees and self-employed people.

Senate Bill 86 would make it easier for groups in North Carolina to create Association Health Plans, which are plans created by a trade group or other business association can offer to their members. These plans would specifically apply to workers in companies with fewer than 50 employees.

“Small businesses have been failed by the current insurance market,” said bill co-sponsor Sen. Joyce Krawiec (R-Forsyth).

Association Health Plans (AHPs) allow the self-employed and workers in small businesses not offering coverage to buy in to a group plan offered by the association. Group coverage is typically more affordable than insurance on the individual market, meaning this measure could provide more affordable insurance options to an estimated 110,000 North Carolinians, according to the bill sponsors.

For instance, according to news reports, “the Nebraska Farm Bureau and Medica announced they were teaming up to offer a menu of association health plans in 2019 for individual farmers, ranchers and small agriculture-related businesses.” The plans are expected to deliver a premium savings of up to 25 percent.

Allowing for and promoting AHPs in North Carolina could generate significant premium cost savings for health insurance consumers, especially farmers and small business employees.

The short answer is that more gun restrictions are not likely in the very near future. However, we all know that might change if the General Assembly shifts to Democrat control in the next election. Now we have even more proof.

The bill is chock-full of new regulations including permits for long guns and semi-automatic rifles, expanded waiting periods and age requirements, mandating liability insurance for gun-owners, and allowing the destruction of seized guns by law enforcement. It also utilizes the “California Roster of Certified Handguns” on what will be allowable for purchase in the state on top of a myriad of other restrictions. Just go read the bill. Any Second Amendment supporter and supporter of our Bill of Rights should be appalled that lawmakers would think these restrictions are sensible.

California type gun control is an apt description here. The legislation is extremely radical even by today’s quest by the Left for more gun restrictions. It’s quite a leap from the plain meaning of the Second Amendment text, “shall not be infringed.”

Overall, one piece of positive news is that the federal courts are trending in the direction of protecting firearm owners, and these types of bills could certainly be problematic for gun grabbing enthusiasts.

The bill was rolled out on the first anniversary of the tragic Parkland shooting massacre. Check out the Toxic Agenda piece for constitutionally protected solutions to gun violence. But one thing we need to do is focus on targeting perpetrators instead of law-abiding citizens.

I think it was a mistake for Republicans and other Second Amendment supporters in the General Assembly to not make any attempt to expand our rights in this way while there was a friendly super-majority in both chambers. Again, most every other conservative state did. Even if Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed the bill, they would have put him on record of being against the expansion of an inherent right.

Finally, it sounds like a lot of lawmakers need to relearn that the people are the government. We should be the ones who are putting restrictions on them and not the other way around.

State Rep. John Hardister (R-Guilford) joined Robert T. Reives II (D-Durham, Chatham) , Chuck McGrady (R-Henderson), and Brian Turner (D-Buncombe) as the primary sponsors of the a bill to establish an eleven-member commission to handle legislative redistricting. House Bill 69 would also establish the criteria the commission would use to draw those districts. The bill has so far attracted eighteen other sponsors, including thirteen Democrats and five Republicans. Redistricting is currently handled by the General Assembly but legislators have regularly submitted bills proposing a redistricting commission for well over a decade. Of course, in those days it was Republicans calling for a commission while Democrats insisted the current process works just fine.

Here are the basics of the proposal in H69:

Two Democratic and two Republican legislative leaders will each submit a list of 10 people affiliated with their party and 3 people not affiliated with either major party.

The State Auditor (currently Democrat Beth Wood) will create a system to randomly select a total 4 Democrats, 4 Republicans, and 3 unaffiliated individuals from those lists. The unaffiliated members could be Libertarians or Greens.

The commission will draw district lines for the NC House, NC Senate, and North Carolina’s seats in the US Congressional.

The commission submits the plan to the General Assembly. The plan is not subject to amendment. If the General Assembly rejects the plan, the commission will submit a second plan. That second submission is also not subject to amendment.

If the General Assembly rejects the second plan, the commission will submit a third plan. That submission would be subject to amendment, essentially returning the power to draw districts to the legislature.

The bill is entitled “Nonpartisan Redistricting Commission”, implying a quixotic quest of finding 11 people who are very interested in how the General Assembly districts are drawn but who are otherwise disinterested in the political outcomes of those districts. House Speaker Tim Moore noted the impossibility of such a task:

Are we thinking that we’re going to locate folks on this redistricting commission who are knowledgeable and interested in legislative redistricting but don’t have a political agenda? What kind of political science class is that?

Redistricting is an inherently political process, which also means that it is an inherently partisan process. We should be leery of claims that redistricting commissions will produce balanced maps. Even supporters of California’s redistricting commission admit that its maps favored one party over the other in a “nonpartisan” process that turned out to be very partisan.

However, despite the name of the legislation, the commission would be anything but nonpartisan (perhaps “multipartisan” would be a better descriptor). It requires a super majority of at least eight members to approve a map and support from at least two members of each partisan group (Democrats, Republicans, and unaffiliated). It means that any of the groups have a veto over any proposed maps. It is the acknowledgement of partisanship in H69 that is a potential saving grace for this proposal.

Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3) died on Sunday. He had served in Congress since 1995.

Many will remember him as being a principled conservative who was nevertheless willing to work across the aisle, and for his commitment to America’s service men and women. Fellow Congressman Mark Meadows called Jones a “beloved colleague and friend who had a profound impact on all through his graciousness, character, and committed Christian faith.”

The loss of Jones means that the people of two of North Carolina’s congressional districts (the 3rd and the 9th) now lack representation.

Under North Carolina law, Jones’ seat will be filled through a special election. Governor Roy Cooper will set dates for both a general election and a primary. The General Assembly may have to modify the Voter ID enabling legislation it passed last December to exclude the primary since it is unlikely that local boards will be ready to implement the law this spring. Another consideration is that, while North Carolina law stipulates an absentee voting period of at least 30 days, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act requires an absentee voting period of at least 45 days for military and overseas voters.

The 3rd District is considered to be safely Republican; Jones regularly won by more than 30 percentage points. That means we can expect an active Republican primary for this special election.

This morning I spoke briefly with Joe Catenacci about the legacy of North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones (1943- 2019). When I first moved to this state somebody asked me who I admired in North Carolina politics? I immediately responded with Walter Jones. Not necessarily because I agreed with him the most but because I saw him as somebody who was reflective and sensitive, particularly to the pain of his constituents. He told the AP about what attending funerals of the fallen from the wars after 9/11 had done to him: “I want them to know that my heart aches as their heart aches.” It was the infamous trench poet Wilfred Owen who once wrote, “Those who feel most for others suffer most in war.”

This video of Jones speaking about the display of fallen service members from Camp Lejeune outside of his office certainly speaks to a different kind of lawmaker. He was obviously somebody who was principled and was willing to buck his own party. His commitment to sounding the alarm on our debt and federal spending was a constant reminder that overall, the Republican Party in Washington D.C. has abandoned fiscal sanity. They don’t have the courage to govern as principled men and women and are willing to sacrifice future generations instead of focusing on much-needed belt-tightening. Their careers come before moral courage.

I was told on several occasions by some people in this state that Jones didn’t matter that much in Washington. He didn’t get things done because he wasn’t in good with Republican Party leadership. Of course, the part of not getting things done wasn’t true. He was continually willing to stand up to corruption and entrenched power in his own party as I’ve pointed out on this blog before. In this era of spending binges, his witness to the lunacy of more federal spending increases was more than enough.

Finally, his legacy is strong because he was willing to go against the grain and not just be a pretend conservative or one of convenience. If you agreed with him or not, you knew his vote wasn’t for sale. In Washington, we are desperately in need of more lawmakers like that, who look at the spending and much of the status quo and say, “I have the courage to change things.”

The recent release of a draft of the NC teacher turnover report has been well reported. One interesting twist on the subject comes from article comes from Jessica Stanford at Carolina Demography.

Using data from the Census Bureau, Stanford found that of the those leaving teaching as a career, are most likely to pursue occupations in the healthcare/social assistance sector.

According to the data, approximately 4,100 teachers left teaching each quarter between January 2015 and June 2017. Of those 4,100 the most popular each quarter approximately 900 were employed in the healthcare/social assistance fields. The second most popular occupational area was administrative services.

Why healthcare? Stanford writes:

Healthcare may specifically attract individuals with strong interpersonal skills, a desire for a people-oriented career, and a high degree of flexibility and empathy. At the same time, healthcare jobs generally offer better pay and hours than teaching

Civitas has now had a couple of articles fact-checked by Politifact North Carolina. We even have our own file and it buttresses our truth-telling record. One fact was deemed “true” and another “mostly true.” We were recently fact-checked for a number we offered for students who are on the school choice waiting list in this piece.

We had a great response to the “mostly true” rating on Twitter. Plus, it’s a little hard to pinpoint the exact number on waiting lists for school choice, and one could slightly quibble around the edges, but we are extremely confident in our accuracy. In short, we stand by the 60,000 number and believe it is likely an underestimate if anything. The point of this post is not to nitpick or squabble with Politifact NC but to highlight a few important thoughts about media fact-checking and the role of journalism, or what Edmund Burke called the “Fourth Estate.”

We often hear about political approval ratings for politicians but the media has fairly low levels of trust too. Politifact has fact-checked that as well. Their popularity or levels of trust has improved since 2016 but only 21 percent of Republicans are trusting of the “mass media.”

One of the worst fact-checks from this week came from NPR concerning Trump’s accurate claim that more women are serving in Congress than ever before. The editorializing in this fact-check takes a weird turn and implies Trump meant to mislead the public on the claim, that he somehow credited Republicans and not Democrats for this transformation. There is no evidence of that in the speech and to me, it’s clear he is looking at and signaling Democrats through the exchange. This post from RedState does a good job of explaining the silliness and offers up some brief commentary on problems with fact-checking. Much of the problem stems from editorializing after a fact is rated. The nuance of some fact-claims are navigated well, others not so much. Here is a lot more from David Harsanyi at the Federalist.

At any rate, we welcome fact-checking of Civitas articles and publications. We have a rigorous and robust editorial process and take pride in our accuracy. On the heels of the Washington Post Super Bowl ad about the importance of the media, there has been additional discussion and emphasis on the need for truth-telling and transparency in a democracy. I completely agree. I’ve worked in the media on the reporting and opinion side and understand the need for a professional media steeped in high ethical standards and accuracy. Unfortunately, I think many in the media, certainly not all, have abandoned that effort in favor of more politicized goals. One clear problem, whether you like or despise Trump, is watching many in the media continually toss aside any form of objectivity in an effort to discredit the president, thereby causing great harm to the entire “watchdog” and transparency process in itself.

This country needs a fair, independent, and free press to combat the many falsehoods we are inundated with every day, from both sides. Even if we find disagreement with some in the media, we should thank them for their work and some of the great content they produce for our state and nation.

I think this is an overall conversation Brooke and I will amp up even more on Civitalk podcast in the coming weeks. It’s too important not to address. We will work on making sure to get a professional fact checker for an interview as well to talk about the essential role the professional journalists play in a free society and see if media members have identified areas for improvements in the fact-checking process. It is undeniable that where there is an absence of truth freedom suffers.

House Democrats and some presidential candidates are currently engaging in some kind of wild competition on who can call for the highest marginal tax rates. This from a story fromYahoo News on Rep. Ilhan Omar, a new member of Congress from Minnesota:

Weeks after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., made headlines by calling for a top marginal income tax rate of 70 percent in an interview with “60 Minutes,” her fellow freshman congresswoman, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., suggested that the rich could pay even more.

“There are a few things that we can do,” Rep. Omar said in an interview with “Through Her Eyes.” “One of them, is that we can increase the taxes that people are paying who are the extremely wealthy in our communities. So, 70 percent, 80 percent, we’ve had it as high as 90 percent. So, that’s a place we can start.”

“The one percent must pay their fair share,” she continued.

Rep. Omar mentioned the tax increase as a way to pay for programs like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal being championed by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.

The national defense budget is another area Rep. Omar has her eye on.

“I’m also one that really looks at the defense budget that we have, Rep. Omar said. “That has increased nearly 50% since 9/11. And so, most of the money that we have in there is much more than with we spend on education, on healthcare.”

Certainly, there is room to cut the defense budget, but interestingly enough, it is the one expenditure she cites that is specifically mandated to the federal government in our Constitution. But back to the subject of taxes, presidential candidate and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed her own special “wealth tax.” There are other tax hikes and class warfare initiatives proposed by other candidates.

We desperately need to get away from the thinking that all problem solving and solutions need to go through Washington. We are $22 trillion in debt and most of the representatives up there have been horrible stewards of our tax dollars. Not just for years but decades upon decades. Anybody paying attention, and not consumed by envy, knows the problem is not lack of revenue but profligate spending.

Furthermore, Gov. Roy Cooper wants to tie North Carolina to a broken and debt-saddled federal government through Medicaid expansion. There are lots of reasons to oppose that but I think one of the most obvious reasons is our federal government is broken and politicians are unable to muster up any courage to make the necessary changes to put us on a path towards fiscal sanity. It’s not compassionate to mismanage the money of taxpayers and bankrupt the federal government. I wrote about the entire dilemma recently in the News & Observer.

We should by now know the rich do in fact pay their fair share. In 2016, The top 1 percent of earners pay a greater share of individual income taxes than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 50 percent pay 97 percent of all income taxes. Our federal income taxes are already plenty progressive, not regressive.

I hope North Carolina continues to set an example of low taxes in the nation. There is more to do like abolish the corporate income tax to spur greater economic growth and consider cutting sales and fuel taxes, which disproportionally harm lower income earners.

We somehow have completely abandoned many of the reasons we first instituted government in this country, one of the main reasons being to protect private property not plunder it. This country has to do something else besides the continual tax and spend policies that have left us so saddled with the debt we are inflicting serious and lifelong punishment for future generations.

Amazingly, we’ll have to wait and see if any lawmaker dares to go above that 90 percent number. At this pace, I wouldn’t bet against it.